24 Md. App. 1 - Daniels v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We have no difficulty in determining that in no event could the erroneous instruction be held to be harmless. At the moment of truth, the verdict of the jury depended upon whether they believed the two witnesses who identified Daniels as the felon or the witness who said he was in her company when the crime was committed. See Jackson v. State, supra. The weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses were matters for the trier of fact. James v. State, 14 Md. App. 689 ; Wilkins v. State, 11 Md. App. 113 . We may not usurp the function of the jury by holding that the eyewitnesses should be believed over the alibi evidence. Daniels is entitled to a new trial.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 24 Md. App. 8 - Dempsey v. State

2. ““We think the sound view to be that an alibi is not an affirmative defense, placing any burden upon a defendant beyond the self-evident one of attempting to erode the State’s proof to a point where it no longer convinces the fact finder beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof of an alibi, like any other defense testimony, is simply a means of controverting the State’s effort to establish criminal agency.” Daniels v. State, 24 Md. App. 1, 5 , 329 A. 2d 712, 715 (1974); Jackson v. State, 22 Md. App. 257 , 322 A. 2d 574 (1974); State v. Grady, 276 Md. 178 , 345 A. 2d 436 (1975) .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 38 Md. App. 682 - Pulley v. State

3. “Alibi witnesses occupy a strange separate niche of their own in the weighing of evidence in a criminal case. The testimony of alibi witnesses are to be received carefully and subject to careful scrutiny on your part. ... [T ]he burden of proof in this respect is upon the defendant to prove not by a reasonable doubt, but a preponderance of the evidence, the authenticity and truthfulness of the alibi theory and of the alibi witnesses.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 140 Md. App. 1 - Schmitt v. State